Re:confusion

["S. L. Lee" <sllee@mail.asiawind.com>]

Dear Mr. Chu,

Accusation is a big word. I hope I did not make such offense. 

First of all, I did not quote your mail because I expect each
contributor post his/her msg to clearly identify the credits. If I post
it for you, it is listed under my name. That is not right. In addition,
many of the double quotation, triple quotation really occupy a lot of
space. Not that I try to skip your argument.

I think nationality and MinZu can be defined differently. While in
English, the word nationality and minzu may mean similar things at
times, Minzu can be easily distinguished. Nationality is mainly a
political term referring to an entity defined by a nationality name, a
defense system, a political system, and a geographical boundary. MinZU,
on the other hand is not limited by geographical boundary, political
system, ... Jews, Arabs, Aborigines are MinZu. In China, Miao, Yao,
Tibetans, Koreans are all MinZu residing in China.  Han is a bit more
difficult to define now because Han in fact include many sinicized
MinZu. Even before Han became Han, there were the Man, Yi, Rong, Di.
When Han MinZu became a Minzu, it really is a very inclusive term. 

Some Guangdong people did not regard Hakka as part of them, cannot be
extended to all Guangdong people. Lo Xiang Lin's book is quite old.
Those concepts are outdated.  There are still prejudice and
discrimination among the different Chinese groups, like always. But I
don't think any one would say Hakkas are uncivilized.

I think we can say China has many minzu, but we don't have Chinese
Minzu, only Zhonghua minzu which is a composite  and inclusive term for
all Minzu in China.

SL Lee